Pride and Prejudice Economics: Or Why a Single Man with a Fortune of £4,000 Per Year is a Desirable Husband

A single man of large fortune; four or five thousand a year. What a fine thing for our girls! – Mrs. Bennet on Mr. Bingley’s income, Pride and Prejudice, Volume One, Chapter One

One of the hardest concepts for today’s readers to grasp in Jane Austen’s novels are the economic realities of the times. What do her numbers mean in modern terms? What was the standard of living during the regency era? When Olivia Williams as Jane Austen blurted to her brother Henry in Miss Austen Regrets, “Sense and Sensibility has brought me £140. May I not be proud of that?” – how can we translate that sentence so that it would hold some meaning for us?

A currency converter provided by the National Archives in the U.K. provides a rough idea of what these 1810 figures mean. Further clarification from experts will round out our understanding. Please keep in mind that the sums in the third column of the chart are merely approximations. At this precise time U.S. citizens should multiply these figures by two to derive a dollar amount. I am not an expert, and I will leave more detailed explanations to economists like Brad de Long.

To put some of these sums into perspective, the average annual income for an English laborer or farmer in 1800 was around 15-20 pounds. To live comfortably, an English gentleman like Mr. Bennet, would require around 300 pounds per year per individual, or over fifteen times the amount for a working man who supported his family. As you can see from the figures, as long as Mr. Bennet lived, his family was comfortably off. But the situation would change drastically the moment he died. After that unhappy event, Mrs. Bennet would be expected to live off the 4% interest of her £5,000 marriage settlement, or £200 per year. No wonder she became shrill every time she thought of her unmarried daughters, for Mr. Bennet’s entire yearly £2,000 income and his house were entailed to Mr. Collins. After Mrs. Bennet’s death, Lizzy would receive just 1/5 of her mother’s marriage portion, and she would bring to her marriage only 40 pounds per year.

Today it is hard to accurately determine the spending power of these sums (see the different estimates of Mr. Bingley’s income in the example below). Factors that influence spending power are war, inflation, cost of goods, housing and the geographic area in which the dwellings were located. In any event, Mr. Darcy’s and Mr. Bingley’s incomes would still be regarded as exceedingly fine. In fact, Mr. Darcy’s 10,000 per year represents only 4% interest of his vast fortune. And Mr. Bingley, though he receives only 4,000 per year, inherited almost 3.4 million pounds from his tradesman father in today’s terms.

“…the income would normally come from agricultural profits on land or from other property and investments (in Bingley’s case it turns out the be the latter). It is not easy to translate incomes of the time into today’s money. By some calculations, the effects of inflation mean that a pound in Jane Austen’s time has the same value as almost forty pounds today; if so, Bingley’s income would be the equivalent of 150,000 to 200,000 a year in today’s pounds (or around $250,000-$300,000 in current U.S. money). Altered economic condition, however, make estimates like this tricky: for example, goods tended to be much dearer at that time, in relative terms, while labor tended to be much cheaper. In addition, average incomes in this period, even when adjusted for inflation, were much lower than today, soBingley’s income represents a far sharper deviation from the prevailing norm than its current equivalent would be.” – Shapard, Annotated Pride and Prejudice, P 5

One can now understand why in Sense and Sensibility Mrs. Dashwood and her daughters were forced to economize. When John Dashwood, under his wife’s influence, reneged on his promise to his dying father to contribute substantial sums of money to his step family, the women were forced to live on 500 pounds per year. This paltry sum would have barely covered their living expenses had it not been for Sir John Middleton’s generosity in inviting his cousin to live in a cottage on his estate.

Like the Dashwood women, Jane Austen, her mother, and sister also experienced chronic money worry. However, through the sale of her books Jane was able to earn a much needed supplemental income. While the £140 she earned from the sales of Sense and Sensibility does not sound like much, it represents close to $9,800 in today’s U.S. sums. In fact, the proceeds from the sale of her four books netted her over 23,000 pounds or around 46,000 dollars towards the end of her life. After her brother Henry’s financial reversals, this money must have been a welcome boon indeed.

Now that you’ve gained some understanding of what these sums of money mean, please read the following statement made by Mrs. Bennet in Volume 3 of Pride and Prejudice, Chapter 17:

Dear, dear Lizzy. A house in town! Every thing that is charming! Three daughters married! Ten thousand a year! Oh, Lord! What will become of me. I shall go distracted.

How much does ten thousand a year in 1810 represent?
a) £339, 600
b) $680,000
c) A princely sum
d) In relative terms, all of the above

Georgianna Darcy’s marriage portion is 30,000. How much annual income would this sum derive?

To learn more about the ‘Cost of Living in Jane Austen’s England: Vulgar Economy’, click here . This article from the Jane Austen Centre goes into further detail about the Mrs. and Misses Dashwoods’ economic situation.

38 Responses

What an in-depth investigation into the world of P&P! Great preparation for viewers to get ready for Sunday’s PBS showing. Understanding the background can certainly helps one to empathize with the anxiety and agitation of Mrs. Bennet, and at the same time, repect and admire more of Elizabeth’s secure self-image and confidence in her own choice and determination in rejecting initially one of the richest man her family has ever known or will ever encounter!

I had read in an essay in the Oxford Companion to Jane Austen when trying to estimate the values in modern terms, to multiply the sum by 50. According to this chart (and because that essay was written at least ten years ago), I’m under-estimating the U.S. equivalent by about 5-10% when I do that, but it still gives a good (round) ballpark number.

Such an interesting subject! This information is very helpful! It’s still a little hard to completely grasp, though, because I think of a couple hundred thousand pounds a year as being very well off but certainly not excessively rich. But our lives are so different now that our views of what makes someone wealthy have changed.

It’s funny to think about how it would be very expensive to buy a new dress but relatively cheap to hire a lady’s maid to help you put it on. So a Mr. Darcy, for instance, probably didn’t buy as much “stuff” as we buy today but, of course, had scores of servants that we could never afford.

And the property also complicates our understanding because that’s somewhat separate from the income, although, obviously some of the income might come from the property. But the point is that Mr. Darcy didn’t have to use any of his income to buy a house as most people have to do today.

I think it’s also hard to grasp that this was sort of a guaranteed income that could in some cases be supplemented so we can’t compare it directly to a salary. I never had a trust fund so this is a foreign concept to me.

Excellent post on what is actually the heart of the matter in Austen’s novels. One wonders whether this information should be printed on the flyleaf of all her novels for the benefit of young readers who don’t get why all this marrying of rich husbands is important.

A more useful measure might be to express it in terms of average per capita GDP, since that will tell you where the Darcys, Bingleys and Bennets stood in relation to the average British subject at the time.

I’ve heard that the average per capita income around 1800 was something in the neighborhood of 25 pounds. Today it is about 80 times that much, or about 20,000 pounds. So a man with 10,000 per year back then compares to the average person like a man today with 8 million per year, and the Bennets’ 2,000 per year is the equivalent of over 1.5 million per year.

I think a better way to calculate is by using a proxy economy of a present day third world country to reflect buying habits.
This modelling using Adjusted Exchange Rate, Relative Income, Household Purchase Basket. etc would give a more accurate measure of the purchasing power and value of JA characters’ income..
MY calculation using a proxy economy puts Mr Bennet income of £2,000 as equivalent to (Pound Sterling) £156,000 today….the income of a well-to-do person in the UK…
Mr Darcy £10,000 = £ 780,000, a very, very rich man in our today society…..These are income of people in the top 0.04% of today society, (These two characters, i believe were also in that top bracket)
Mrs Dashwood and her 3 daughter would be surviving on £40,000, which in england would be comfortable , but not luxury living…

[…] Why a single man with four thousand a year is desirable husband A Jane Austen currency converter. It actually gives a certain depth to the story when you iunderstand that though Lizzy and her family were comfortable while her father was still alive, but really left with a pittance once he died. It makes the whole saying no to mr. Collins-business a lot more poignant. Reckless even! She’s actually being very undaughterly to her family, who’d be out on the street once papa Bennett dies. It also makes Charlotte Lucas, who I always liked, the normal one. […]

Thank you very much for your very informative article. I have been wondering about how it all translated into today’s standards and you have put it down exceedingly well. For all Mrs Bennet’s worrying I can now understand!

Thank you so much for your work on this entry! I teach Austen, and while I have a pretty good idea of the values, your column makes it so I can say, “Go see this wonderful blog.” Boom! Done! A boon for lazy professors. Brava!

The posession or buying of an estate is also an important consideration in the relative value of the income. In Bingley’s case his sisters want him to do so. It not only indicates status in society but gives back ground rents from tenants as well as produce.
Probably an owner who appears to have as much land as Mr Darcy, has a property which is bringing in a substantial income not only from rents but timber, crops etc. I think the value of the income comparing then to now is more complex than the chart indicates.
The fact that Mrs.Dashwood and her daughters are able to get housing from her cousin make it possible for them to live the lives of gentlewomen, allowing her to keep some servants. Sir William Lucas is able to buy an estate and raise and educate a large family from the proceeds of a shop in a small town (we don’t if he sold the shop outright or if he has it managed for him by others) is something that gives a comparable that I don’t think would be possible today.

[…] between the 600,000 pounds and 750,000 pound bracket, however JaneAustensWorld’s post ‘Pride and Prejudice Economics: Or Why a Single Man with a Fortune of £4,000 Per Year is a De… provides a very convincing case that 10,000 pounds is nearer the 300,000 […]

Prompted by the unlikelihood of the Dashwoods surviving on 16,980 pounds, I looked up the site mentioned:

The disclaimer on the website from which the conversions are draw says: the results of the calculations are intended to be a general guide to historic values, rather than a categorical statement of fact.

So I turned to the site I used while writing a 1918 screenplay: http://www.measuringworth.com, which is shown, not as a ‘maybe’ but an actually conversion.

The Dashwood’s yearly income of 500 would actually translate to 28,200 (a far more believeable income for “Gentleman’s daughters”).

This site has been very, very helpful to me! And, I’m just blown away at how much money that IS! *Faints*

The reasons behind me using the information here are as follows: I have an English study on “Pride and Prejudice” and “Letters to Alice on first reading Jane Austen” and the assessment is based on three paradigms (or, ways of thinking) in context to the 19th Century, the 1980’s (Alice’s time frame in England) and today. If, anyone could tell me what the basic wage was in pounds during the 1980’s I would be ever so grateful.

Actually, Georgiana Darcy would not be receiving 30,000 pounds a year, but rather would receive one lump sum totalling 30,000 pounds upon the occasion of her marriage, provided that Mr. Darcy approved her choice. Nevertheless, the interest from this sum would allow her 1,500 pounds per year, which would be added to whatever income her husband had of his own (because naturally she would marry a gentleman of independent means).

You are absolutely right. I mentioned that it was a marriage portion, but I wrote the question incorrectly. I have fixed it. Thank you. In terms of yearly income, I have gone with more conservative estimates from other sources, which includes the sum you mentioned.

I think i’ve now seen the movie P&P a hundred times, as well as the other Jane Austen novels! Many people don’t realize how hard it was for women back then and that marriage and money were life and death. Always wondered about the money difference from 1810 to 2011 exchange rate and appreciate this great post.
I wish there were more of the wonderful manners lost of that period in todays time*

[…] sound like much of a fortune. The wonderful blog Jane Austen’s World has a post, “Pride and Prejudice Economics: Or Why a Single Man with a Fortune of £4,000 Pounds Per Year is a De…,” which describes several monetary references in Austen’s novels and letters in modern […]

[“Sir William Lucas is able to buy an estate and raise and educate a large family from the proceeds of a shop in a small town (we don’t if he sold the shop outright or if he has it managed for him by others) is something that gives a comparable that I don’t think would be possible today.”]

Chances are Sir William sold that shop. He would need to do that and purchase an estate in order to be viewed as a member of the upper-classes. Bingley has to do the same – sell off his factory and purchase an estate.

Did the daughters always just get whatever dowry the mother had upon her marriage? I see that the Bennett girls only received their mother’s portion divided up among them. Is Georgiana Darcy’s 30,000 pounds the amount of money that her mother received upon her marriage? If Georgiana had sisters would they have each received money from their father or would their mother’s marriage money have been divided up among them?

Where can I find the same kind of information about Jane Eyre? Mr. Rochester is worth 20,000 pounds – what does that mean? is that just the yearly interest on his estate? If Jane earns 30 pounds per annum as a governness, what does that translate into, in dollars, in today’s market?Many thanks.

You can certainly see your enthusiasm in the article you write.
The arena hopes for even more passionate writers such as you who aren’t afraid to mention how they believe. All the time follow your heart.

Join me on Facebook

Hello, my name is Vic and I live in Richmond, VA. I work in program and professional development at Virginia Commonwealth University, and I have adored Jane Austen almost all of my life. I am a proud lifetime member of the Jane Austen Society of North America. This blog is a personal blog written and edited by me. I do not accept any form of cash advertising, sponsorship, or paid topic insertions. However, I do accept and keep books, DVDs and CDs to review.

Contributors to this blog include: Tony Grant and Christine Stewart.

If you would like to share a new site, or point out an error, please email me. (Yes, I am fallible. I'll own up to my mistakes and will make the corrections with a polite smile on my face.) Write me at

Irresistible Attraction

An online Regency novel in serialized form. Click here to read a new chapter of Irresistible Attraction each week, and follow the story of Amanda Sinclair and James Cavendish, the Earl of Downsley.

My Regency Tea Cup Review Ratings

Five Regency tea cups: The book is not perfect (few books are), but it was well worth its purchase and possesses many outstanding qualities that makes it stand head and shoulders above its counterparts.

Four Regency tea cups: This book offered many hours of pleasant reading, and I found I could not put it down.

Three Regency tea cups: Damned with faint praise. I put the book down often, but was intrigued enough to finish it. In this instance, the movie might be better.

Two Regency tea cups: This book required major changes that the author and editor should have fixed before publishing deadline.

One Regency tea cup: Oh dear. I do so feel for the trees that sacrificed their lives for this verbal garbage.